Forum:Achievements
00:04, December 15, 2013 (UTC) *'Neutral' - I still fundamentally disagree with them on principle, but since we haven't had any major problems during the trial, I won't oppose in this vote. - 00:04, December 15, 2013 (UTC) I feel we need more time to trial this. Atleast two months.Hyperborrean22 (talk) 19:36, December 16, 2013 (UTC) *'Support' - While i wouldve liked to prolong the trial longer, ill support their stay none the less. So far weve only had one problem with them but that was swiftly taken care of. -- 00:10, December 15, 2013 (UTC) *'Vehement Oppose' - On several accounts: #This system goes against the spirit of editing. It rewards users with arbitrary points (an e-penis, more or less) for menial tasks they ought to have been willing to do in the first place. #It has failed to provide any growth. Activity before and after implementation has remained relatively constant. #It is almost entirely uncustomizable. Beyond some very basic settings achievements cannot be changed fundamentally. #It fosters poor edit habits, as has been proven time and again. No matter how on-target our admins are, it won't stop people from editing with achievements in mind (as opposed to editing for the well-being of the wiki) #We have our own system that actually works. It encourages positive editing habits and interaction with other users. I might add more as it comes to mind. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 21:10, December 15, 2013 (UTC) :Those awards require voting yet no one ever does so. On top of that Achievements are automatic and do allow a bit of customization (Awards for editing on only weapon articles). Most new users are not even aware of our awards. Any Hunting found has resulted in warning and ban -- 21:18, December 15, 2013 (UTC) ::Our awards aren't MEANT to be given out on a whim. I was in the middle of rewriting the welcome template to mention more of our goings-on before my hiatus. The fact that you (and most of our actual community) are aware of but do not use our awards is entirely the community's fault, and can be rectified if you take the initiative. ::A "little bit" isn't helpful. We need to avoid relying on Wikia-made features because we need as much control as possible. Automization isn't desirable, ever. ::But they had to have "hunted" to start with in order to be found. I guarantee, no matter how good you are at banning/catching, they will "hunt" anyway. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 21:28, December 15, 2013 (UTC) :::In fairness, a "need to avoid relying on Wikia-made features" is not a valid reason at all to oppose this - and neither is a need for "as much control as possible". Evaluation of features must be based on their merits and flaws, not their manufacturers. Whether we vote to enable or disable achievements, either way we will be the ones in control, as far as possible on Wikia. - 21:55, December 15, 2013 (UTC) ::::Lack of control is a flaw. And I wasn't talking about "manufacturers"; Wikia makes everything we use, it's a matter of relying as little as possible on their premade features. Remember the preload-esque feature they made a while ago that was nowhere near as good as the one used by FO wiki? That's case in point. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 21:56, December 15, 2013 (UTC) Now we're getting into wiki politics! We need to give people an inncentive to edit other wise we are hidden. Getting rid of this will create no interest. Keep it around we may get 1 or 2 more people as a result. We can spark something, but throwing a pale of water over our match won't burn the bridges we need burnt.Hyperborrean22 (talk) 19:38, December 16, 2013 (UTC) :::::I've been here for almost four years, and believe me, this wiki is way larger and more active than it was when I first joined. Editors come and go on a regular basis and, speaking from past experience, it's next to impossible to actually force new users. They have to be willing to settle down and get active in the community. The features we have are just one small part of the equation. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 00:19, December 17, 2013 (UTC) *'Oppose': I share the viewpoints of Yuri in that they go against the spirit of editing due to promoting an almost compulsive mindset. And personally, I think they're clunky and obstruct page views, especially the Recent Changes page which is cluttered to the top with notifications. *'Strong oppose': It's never good. It encourages users to edit specific pages. Taking the true feeling out of editing...-- SlopijoeDown em all 00:31, December 16, 2013 (UTC) Isn't it good we have people clearing up little mistakes? I swear the amount of mistakes you people make whilst editing...Hyperborrean22 (talk) 19:36, December 16, 2013 (UTC) *'Oppose: '''It has shown no real improvement and singles out pages. Quality over quantity is the hero of today.. How does this exactly "single out" pages?Hyperborrean22 (talk) 19:36, December 16, 2013 (UTC) *'Strong Support': It has really motivated me, and I think also some others to edit and add here and there. (ROK) DK0010 (talk) 13:16, December 16, 2013 (UTC)(ROK) DK0010 :Neither of you have given good arguments for their implementation. There's a clear correlative relationship between achievements and quantity-editing. This is not a desirable form of editing. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 18:11, December 16, 2013 (UTC) :We need longer to see how this turns out. I suggest we try this for two months and see what happens as a result. Get more data and convince unturned heads! Hyperborrean22 (talk) 19:27, December 16, 2013 (UTC) *'Strong Support: It's a motivatore. It may cause hunting but atleast activity is genorated. Just keep it. Otherwise new users will feel unrewarded and leave. Hyperborrean22 (talk) 17:35, December 16, 2013 (UTC) :Negative activity is undesirable activity. Aside from that, who exactly has it motivated? I haven't noticed a significant increase in editors or edit numbers, but I have seen an increase in bad edits. Why should we reward users for bad behavior? I hate to be harsh but if you require rewards for doing basic stuff other people would be glad to do for free, I see no reason for you to be editing a wiki anyway. We have a dedicated core userbase as-is, it doesn't need to be diluted by gratification-seekers. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 18:09, December 16, 2013 (UTC) :It gets people editing and we need editors. This community (as I have said before) is to small. Who's even going to appreciate our work if we just keep it unknown? I also don't mean to be harsh, but a lot of people don't realise this place exists. They will go to Youtube if they need info about a gun or map. Get editors, get people talking, get this place out there so people can see us and appreciate our effort. How do we do that? We give people an incentive to edit. Yes it brings in "gratification seekers" (I personally don't believe there is such a thing) but is that so bad? Captilism says no, it's not. Hyperborrean22 (talk) 19:27, December 16, 2013 (UTC) ::Capitalism is a bad system which is specifically designed for the systematic oppression of the poor. I don't think it's relevant here. The point is that there are people who edit solely for achievements, rather than for the health and quality of the wiki. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 00:15, December 17, 2013 (UTC) *'''Neutral - Everyone on both sides have made very effective and strong points. I can definitely see the positives that Achievements bring to the Wiki, but the flaws are very obvious. The inability to edit them to our liking (save for a customizable picture), and users who will (and already have) abuse them for the sake of gaining points. However, they do encourage editing. I can see them as coexisting with our current Awards system as well. For these reasons, I am neutral on Achievements. 20:33, December 16, 2013 (UTC) *'Support' - While there are certainly valid questions raised by members who oppose the idea, Achievements are at least doing something getting people to edit. While there is always the concern of people trying to cheat the system for points or just make many small edits, I feel that these disadvantages are not a massive problem. Small edits to add info and fix grammar here and there are better than not having those edits, and problematic edits are cleaned up easily enough. :I don't know if it's just me, but I think I've seen more new names and more editing activity in the last two weeks. I think it's worth keeping it for now. With new people around, we shouldn't pull it back as they're getting used to it. We just need communication with all our users to make sure we keep the proper spirit of editing. :I don't agree with wanting gratification points for editing a wiki, but we do need contributors. Anything that gets users in the door paves the way for more good editors. If we didn't need things like this, i wouldn't support, but we do not live in a perfect wiki-world. :: ' ArrowTwoActual'Talk 21:20, December 16, 2013 (UTC) *'Support' - I believe the achievements give a nice incentive to editting, good or bad. Bad edits can be cleaned up quick enough, either way. 22:44, December 16, 2013 (UTC) *'Oppose' - I know I haven't been here for a while now, but I've been called to give my thoughts, and I'm compelled to do so. : This achievement thingy has proven systematically that it doesn't work for what it's intended for. Apart from taking away the "spirit of editing" or whatever, it makes people edit for the wrong intentions, and not to make the site a good source of information like it is supposed to be. Let's get back on our roots and really focus on the purpose of this, and not go to any irrelevant features to motivate people to do it. If they're not for the right intentions, nothing actually good will come from them. I'm not expecting an article revamp like I or H2 or others used to do under the motivation of these achievements, and we did such anyway, simply because of how we loved Battlefield 2142, and that should be the driving force behind this wiki, nothing else. : And I think that, going by the weight of the arguments presented until now, Yuri presents a more cogent position on the matter. I rest my case. - Pedro9basket ([[User talk:Pedro9basket|''talk]]) [ ] 23:12, December 16, 2013 (UTC) :Sorry Pedro but you have not been active enough to be an eligible voter -- 23:30, December 16, 2013 (UTC) ::Pedro meets the requirements at BF:VOTE - 23:35, December 16, 2013 (UTC) *'Support''' Per my fellow Trusted Users, (ROK), and Hyper. (Off-topic, I see a political-party thing whereas most Admins/B'crats oppose whilst Blue-links and TU's support :P) Bleh. 23:20, December 16, 2013 (UTC) ::Interesting point. Us old people are more likely to oppose it and you new kids on the block seem to support it. Each is equally entitled to their opinion, of course. - 23:23, December 16, 2013 (UTC) :::I'm not exactly a "new kid" as I've been around since the CoD Wiki Task Force arrived back in '10. However I voted support (even though tywin raged when I told him I wasn't opposing) 23:25, December 16, 2013 (UTC) ::::I came in '10 as well. Apparently a month after Ramp since July comes before June :P. Seriously though not a noob -- 23:41, December 16, 2013 (UTC) ::::Actually, Jack, that's precisely why I am neutral on this. This whole discussion seems like stuff has been stated behind the scenes; there is more to it than meets the eye. Self agendas and whatnot, y'know. 23:28, December 16, 2013 (UTC) ::::In fact, this is completely correct. Tywin and Yuri are trying to get everyone they know to oppose so that they can win, however several of us refuse to be influenced by this. 23:30, December 16, 2013 (UTC) :::::I suspect you are right. It's very annoying, even if they do have a valid argument - 23:35, December 16, 2013 (UTC). ::::::You want to know what else is very annoying, bondpedia? Being accused of something (which for one thing isn't against policy in any way, regardless) I had no part in by somebody who is known to start fights for no better reason than because he can. Ask anybody else on this wiki, I haven't talked to anybody about it except for you and Ramp. ::::::I honestly think ramp should apologize to me for putting words in my mouth. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 22:26, December 18, 2013 (UTC) :::::::Any matters of accusations and apologies is between you and Ramp. As for what concerns me, I think that attempting to clandestinely sway people's votes, while not banned currently, is suspect and I think policy should be amended to explicitly ban it. - 22:45, December 18, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::Clandestinely? This is a joke, yes? We should be banned from making our case to people? Whether it's in a public forum or in a private conversation doesn't matter; it's the same fucking thing. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 22:48, December 18, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::With respect, I wholeheartedly disagree. You can make your case here, and since here is the only place that matters, there is no legitimate need to make it anywhere else. If you wouldn't say it in public, then surely you must know it is inappropriate to say it in private. By all means discuss, but attempting to influence the votes of others by intimidation or other corrupt means is entirely inappropriate. A vote on the matter has just gone live here. - 23:35, December 18, 2013 (UTC) :::::::Again with the accusations. I haven't done any of that. If Tywin did, that's his business, leave me the hell out of it. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 23:45, December 18, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::I don't recall me accusing you of anything. If you're talking about the post above, 'you' was used in the general sense of 'any person', not an accusation against you specifically. Perhaps "one can make one's case here" (etc.) would be a better rephrasing? - 23:49, December 18, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::It's blatantly obvious you've been lumping me in with Tywin, even though I haven't even been complicit in whatever actions he's taken. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 00:01, December 19, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::Yuri I'm 99% sure the message you sent me was "c'mon ramp, vote oppose" 03:16, December 19, 2013 (UTC) :::::::::::I'm 99% sure you're full of shit. Let's not forget the certain user who blew a minor incident way out of proportion and then tried to play the victim. What I said wasn't threatening, it was a simple appeal and I dropped it when you said no. Yet you still come here and try to portray me as being the bad guy? :::::::::::I had no fucking idea what tywin was doing, nor do I honestly care -- in my opinion the both of you need to cease contact because it seems like every few weeks there's some issue that is spontaneously generated because of your interactions. It always seems to get blown massively out of proportion, and spirals into a headache-inducing nightmare for everybody involved, as that forum illustrates. Just stop, alright? If tywin's doing something he shouldn't be, then fucking report it to somebody -- hell, if you'd come to me instead of being unnecessarily rude, I would've told Tywin to knock it off -- instead of turning it into something it's not. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 03:53, December 19, 2013 (UTC) ::::::::::::Can I suggest a solution? Let's forget what has or has not happened in the past and move on. Discussion of this particular incident stops now. If anyone tries anything similar again from now on, report it. Otherwise, this destructive and distracting argument stops now. - 09:03, December 19, 2013 (UTC) :::::If people don't feel forced to vote on what side they feel to be more convincing, they should definetly do it. This is a democracy, and people may or may not be in their favour. :::::And even apart from that, I'm not sure why you are taking this so politically. This achievement system doesn't meet the goals people hope to meet, and I'm not expecting any benefit from it in an objective standpoint. - Pedro9basket ([[User talk:Pedro9basket|''talk]]) [ ] 23:40, December 16, 2013 (UTC) ::::I dont know about Yuri but i did see what you posted on Tywins talk -- 23:33, December 16, 2013 (UTC) ::::Tywin threatened to block me for "insulting" him even though I just told him I wasn't going to vote, then he screamed "AFTER ALL THE STUFF IVE DONE FOR YOU" and he hasn't done anything. And I just got a steam message from Yuri telling me to opppose achievements. 23:37, December 16, 2013 (UTC) :::::Don't listen to them. Make your own mind up. If Tywin blocks anyone without good reason, it will be undone and he will be disciplined and demoted for abuse of privileges. He's already on a final warning - 23:41, December 16, 2013 (UTC) :::::I made an appeal, but he's the only one I've talked to. Why is this even a conversation? Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 23:44, December 16, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Keep your conflicts in the private enviroment it ought to be and stick to the topic, of wheter this system should be implemented on the Wiki or not. - Pedro9basket ([[User talk:Pedro9basket|talk'']]) [ ] 23:47, December 16, 2013 (UTC) This has been one of the most eventful debates here in a very long time. The result: achievements stay, by a margin of 6 votes to 5. - 19:52, December 19, 2013 (UTC) }}